We Can’t Agree on Inequality—Here’s Why

Centuries of argument have left a stubborn question unresolved: how much economic inequality is acceptable? Unlike inequalities rooted in race, gender, or disability—which typically attract broad moral condemnation—economic inequality in income, consumption, and wealth remains fiercely contested. That contestation does not result from a flaw in the debate; it is the debate’s defining feature.

This article briefly surveys the range of positions held by ordinary citizens and experts about economic inequality and explains why a single, definitive answer is so elusive. The issue persists because it is far from trivial. Income gaps can reward innovation and fuel growth, yet they can also cement structural disadvantages that stifle opportunity regardless of individual effort. And that tension is only the beginning.

As with many economic phenomena, economic inequality (henceforth simply “inequality”) arises from a mix of incentives, opportunities, institutions, luck, and personal choices. Some inequality is the natural byproduct of a dynamic market economy. Some reflects structural barriers, discrimination, or inherited disadvantage. And some inequality stems from people wanting different things and making different trade-offs.

Consider two otherwise identical individuals who are equally able to make free choices: one opts for a 40-hour workweek, while the other chooses to work 25 hours in order to spend more time with family. Standard measures of inequality—such as Gini coefficients or interquintile ratios—will record an income gap between these individuals. But should this disparity be regarded as a social problem, or is it simply the outcome of differing preferences?

Or consider entrepreneurship. Jeff Bezos and Sara Blakely became billionaires because millions of consumers voluntarily purchased the products and services they offered. Even accepting that most of their wealth reflects the scale of the value they created, it nonetheless contributes to a widening of measured inequality. The question, then, is whether and under what conditions such inequality should be considered excessive.

Within the realm of firms, another tension appears: most agree that a CEO’s compensation should exceed that of an entry-level employee. Consensus collapses, however, when we ask by how much. Should they earn 350 times more, as current data indicates? We observe similar dynamics in sports and entertainment. Star athletes earn vastly more than a schoolteacher, not necessarily because they work harder, but because global demand for elite performance is enormous and highly scalable. Inequality increases—yet so does the enjoyment of millions of fans. The question, again, is whether and under what conditions such inequality should be considered excessive.

Against this backdrop, public concern about inequality remains real and nuanced. Surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans believe inequality is “too high,” though fewer than half consider it a top priority. What qualifies as “too high,” moreover, varies sharply by political affiliation, income level, and personal experience. Even among those who view inequality as excessive, most agree that some degree of inequality is justified. The difficulty here lies in determining how much qualifies as “some.” On that point, there is little consensus.

The divergence is not uniquely American. In a spring 2024 survey across 36 countries, Pew Research Center found a global median of 54 percent of adults describe economic inequality as a “very big problem” in their country. An additional 30 percent consider it only a “moderately big problem,” while 16 percent view it as “not a problem at all.” Political ideology and income level shape these perceptions at the individual level, and these factors widen disagreement over inequality’s tolerability. At a broader, societal level, long‑standing cultural attitudes—from national myths of meritocracy to historical views on social solidarity—define what a population ultimately perceives as “fair.”

Even at the introspective level, dilemmas emerge. Many people feel uneasy about large economic disparities, yet they also want their own effort, talent, and risk‑taking to be rewarded. Rewarding merit, however, inevitably produces differences in outcomes. Because individuals vary in ability, ambition, and choices, accepting the rewards of one’s own effort also means accepting that others will end up with more—or less.

International institutions also reflect this ambiguity. Goal 10 of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals calls for “reducing” inequality, not eliminating it. By contrast, Goal 1—“No Poverty”—is absolute. The difference is telling: there is broad consensus that poverty is unacceptable, but no consensus on how much inequality is too much.

Even leading economists who argue for reducing inequality avoid specifying a precise target.

Anthony Atkinson wrote “I am not seeking to eliminate all differences in economic outcomes. I am not aiming for total equality. Indeed, certain differences in economic rewards may be quite justifiable. Rather, the goal is to reduce inequality below its current level, in the belief that the present level of inequality is excessive.”

Joseph Stiglitz advocates for greater equality than currently exists in the United States, arguing: “We (or at least most of us) believe in equality, not complete equality, but far more than that characterized by today’s economy.”

What is considered “excessive” or “not complete equality,” however, remains undefined. The absence of a concrete threshold is not an oversight that can be easily resolved. Instead, it reflects the inherent difficulty of the question.

Disagreement extends even to philosophical debates, where consensus might be expected to emerge more readily, since these thinkers often work at a high level of abstraction and are insulated from immediate policy trade-offs. But conclusions drawn from philosophical analyses also suggest that this lack of consensus is likely to persist.

A brief survey of several philosophical positions can help illustrate that there is no universally accepted moral benchmark for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable inequality. Adding further examples only strengthens this point.

For example,∙ sufficientarians argue that everyone should have “enough.” But what “enough” actually entails is rarely defined. In developed countries, “enough” might mean the ability to afford basic nutrition, or the ability to participate fully in modern life—which might require broadband, transportation, and higher education.

(2023) “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-2022.” Quarterly Journal of Economics.

The Pew Research Center recently released a report in January 2020, revealing that a majority of Americans believe there is too much economic inequality in the United States. However, surprisingly, fewer than half of those surveyed consider it a top priority. This disparity in perception highlights a complex issue that has significant implications for the country’s economic and social landscape.

In contrast, a more recent international survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in May 2024 found that a global median of 94 percent of respondents agreed that gender equality is important. This stark difference in public opinion between economic inequality and gender equality underscores the diverse priorities and values held by individuals around the world.

Economic inequality is not just a concern within the United States, but a major challenge that is prevalent globally. In a report published by the Pew Research Center in January 2025, economic inequality was identified as a significant issue that transcends borders and affects societies worldwide. Renowned economists such as Atkinson and Stiglitz have extensively studied and written about the detrimental effects of economic inequality, advocating for policy changes and reforms to address this pressing issue.

On the other hand, gender equality has garnered widespread support and recognition as a fundamental human right. The Pew Research Center’s survey in 2024 found overwhelming consensus on the importance of gender equality, highlighting the progress made in advancing social rights and equality for all individuals.

In his groundbreaking book “Inequality: What Can Be Done?” published in 2015, Atkinson delves into the root causes of economic inequality and proposes actionable solutions to mitigate its effects. Similarly, Stiglitz’s book “People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent” emphasizes the need for a more inclusive and equitable economic system that benefits all members of society.

While discussions on economic inequality continue to spark debates and calls for reform, it is essential to recognize the interconnectedness of various forms of inequality, including gender equality. Philosopher Peter Singer’s work “Animal Liberation” also sheds light on the importance of empathy and compassion towards all living beings, advocating for a more just and equitable society.

As we navigate the complex landscape of economic and social inequality, it is crucial to prioritize inclusive policies and initiatives that promote equality for all individuals. By addressing the root causes of inequality and advocating for systemic change, we can work towards a more just and equitable society for future generations.

*This article was written by Maurizio Bovi, a senior scientist at the Italian National Institute of Statistics and an adjunct professor of economics at Sapienza University of Rome. He is also the author of the 2022 book, “Why and How Humans Trade, Predict, Aggregate, and Innovate,” published by Springer.